karka Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 And, after waiting all those years, it is a real pain to know that, it will be crap.
Haitoku Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 What if... It's the best Fallout of them all!? You never know, It might be all right.
karka Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Troika needed some profit to survive. Profit from Fallout. But, because of Bethesda, they couldn't take the rights of Fallout sequels. They tried, but Bethesda was richer. So, the only developer which deserves to make Fallout 3 is dead now. I think this is a good reason to hate Bethesda. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Troika did not deserve to make Fallout 3. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If creators of the original Fallout don't deserve, then who? Bethesda has nothing with Fallout. I am sure, they played first games after taking the rights. Arcanum was great for me, and Bloodlines was even better. The best rpgs for me after Fallouts.
karka Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 What if... It's the best Fallout of them all!? You never know, It might be all right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They wil change everything that makes the game Fallout. For example, you are a fan of Chrono series. Just imagine that, Blizzard takes the rights of Chrono series and makes Hack&Slash games under the Chrono name.
Haitoku Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 What if... It's the best Fallout of them all!? You never know, It might be all right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They wil change everything that makes the game Fallout. For example, you are a fan of Chrono series. Just imagine that, Blizzard takes the rights of Chrono series and makes Hack&Slash games under the Chrono name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay, I understand. I would only be pissed once I knew that it would be a Hack & Slash game however... Fallout 3 doesn't even look it's hit the point of actual development. Bethesda seems to have a bad rep, anyone care to fill me on why exactly? :ph34r:
Llyranor Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Morrowind? (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
mkreku Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 I don't get it either. Arena was a bugfest, totally unplayable for me. Redguard and.. uh.. the other one.. grr.. forgot the name. Battlespire? They were both 3DFx games so I doubt many of you even played them. Daggerfall was a very good and athmospheric game ("VENGEANCE!!"), although horribly buggy as well. The only really crappy game they've released is Morrowind, mostly because it was a dead game, in a dead world, populated by dead NPC's. Bethesda aren't that bad, they just don't focus on the Planescape: Torment way of things (one playable character, no exploration and isometric view) and that gets most IE fans knickers' in a knot. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Diamond Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 I am interested in how Fallout could turn out and I don't hold some personal hate towards this developer.
Hurlshort Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Morrowind actually has a pretty big fanbase, and it sold very well for an RPG (I'm sure someone will argue that it's not an RPG, but it was marketed that way and that's what leads sales.) Troika never achieved the commercial success that Bethesda has, so it's not worth discussing who would be better. Troika is dead. They made a Falloutish game that used the exact same techniques (gameplay, character creation, graphics, storytelling) called Arcanum. It was set in a totally different world, but it was still a spiritual successor. Fallout 3 will probably not share the gameplay, character creation, and graphics of Fallout 1 and 2. Hopefully it will capture the type of storytelling, and I trust that the gameworld will be outstanding, because Bethesda knows how to make gameworlds. It will not be a top down perspective, but that's not the end of the world. Hopefully it will be a positive evolution, but Bethesda needs to market this game. If they release a souped up version of the original, it will not sell to the masses. The hardcore gamers will rejoice, but it will not be marketable to the console generations. Bethesda is a company, and they need to turn a profit, or they will go the way of Troika.
Llyranor Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 That's the whole freaking point. Fallout and Elder Scrolls do not share the same fanbase for the most part. "Let's piss off old-time fans and make Morrowind with guns! Let's buy Fallout instead of making our own IP based on a similar setting!" If they're catering to a completely different fanbase, why use Fallout at all? Imagine how pissed-off Elder Scrolls fans would be if the ES5 turned out to a turn-based isometric RPG with actual dialogue. What would be the point of using the franchise at all? Fallout 3 does not exist. It died the day JE resigned from IPlay. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Judge Hades Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Bethesda has a rep in making fantasy CRPGs that are basically single player MMORPGs. That is their experience. That is their style. That is not the style of Fallout. When J.E. resigned from Interplay and Van Buren died, so did the series. End of story. Bethesda has no chance in hell in making a good and acceptable Fallout 3.
Darque Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Only for you (w00t) You're not very flexible Hades And inflexible people tend to break
Judge Hades Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) I am ver yflexible on certain issues but when it comes to games, no I am not. A CRPG is more than a sumof its parts, it is a synergy of the various components that goes into it. The rules system, the graphical style, the storyline, the voice acting, the setting, and the music needs to build upon one another to build a proper CRPG. If even one or more of these aspects are out of whack then the whole game is worthless. Fallout is a culmination of these aspects to create a style in which its original programmers and designers created one of the best games ever made. Any drastic deviation from what was set in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 wil only result in garbage. Given Bethesda's design philosophy only garbage can be the result of them making Fallout 3. Edited January 16, 2006 by Judge Hades
Hurlshort Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 I already stated that the spiritual successor of Fallout was Arcanum. Fallout 3 will definitely not resemble the first two, but that doesn't mean it will be terrible. I look forward to it.
Judge Hades Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 If it is Fallout in name only then it will be worthless and terrible.
Oerwinde Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 If what happens to FO3 is what it looks like is going to happen, it could possibly be a good game, it will just be a bad Fallout. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Darque Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 I am ver yflexible on certain issues but when it comes to games, no I am not. A CRPG is more than a sumof its parts, it is a synergy of the various components that goes into it. The rules system, the graphical style, the storyline, the voice acting, the setting, and the music needs to build upon one another to build a proper CRPG. If even one or more of these aspects are out of whack then the whole game is worthless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please. That is such bs. By that logic Fallout 2 was worthless because it wasn't a clone of Fallout.
Cantousent Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 I see Sawyer hanging out in the thread. Any Comments? :Eldar's grinning like the Cheshire cat icon: Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
kirottu Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Bethesda has a rep in making fantasy CRPGs that are basically single player MMORPGs. That is their experience. That is their style. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think they bought the license, partly because they wanted to do something else than they usually do. So until I get proven otherwise I This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
Darque Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 I see Sawyer hanging out in the thread. Any Comments? :Eldar's grinning like the Cheshire cat icon: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I notice he rarely comments unless he can swoosh in swashbuckler style for the kill (w00t)
213374U Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Haha, I actually pity the rabid, foam-mouthed hardcore FO fan crowd. Because regardless of the actual quality of the game released by Bethesda, they will hate it for not being a carbon copy of a game that is almost ten years old. Who the hell would want them as a fanbase? I, on the other hand, will try it and enjoy it if it's an enjoyable game. And if Bethesda has learned anything since Morrowind, chances are it will. Carry on with the hatefest. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Because game companies are companies, and companies need profits to stay in business. That much is manifest, and doesn't address the question. I'm not questioning why they need to make a profit. I'm questioning why the profit they need to make has to equal the profit a much more mainstream game would make. Why does Fallout need to be changed in order to comercially compete with games like the very own Bethesda makes? Maybe they weren't satisfied with the profit it made back then and wanted it to make more? A legitimate stance, but it doesn't provide any support for your claim, or for the idea that it must make profit as if it somehow didn't - because it already did. If you want to argue that they want it to be more profitable, then that's a different discussion. Game developers may desire to make the players happy... but they need to stay in business as well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Indie developers make their players happy and are in the 'business' as well. While they are based on a different business model, they prove that you don't have to sell as much as The Sims 2 in order to stay in the business.
Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Carry on with the hatefest. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gnarl**... *rabble*... *grrr*
Recommended Posts